Year_2013
Inventory Unit Number/Name: OR-015-053A/Rawhide Creek
FORM 1
DOCUMENTATION OF BLM WILDERNESS INVENTORY FINDINGS ON RECORD
1. Is there existing BLM wilderness inventory information on all or part of this area?
No
(go to Form 2) Yes ___X____ (if more than one unit is within the area, list the
names/numbers of those units.)
a) Inventory Source: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Wilderness Inventory, Oregon and Washington: Final Intensive Inventory Decisions,
November 1980. Pgs. 46-47.
b) Inventory Unit Name(s)/Number(s): Rawhide Creek/1-53
c) Map Name(s)/Number(s): U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land
Management Oregon. Intensive Wilderness Inventory Final Decisions. November 1980.
d) BLM District(s)/Field Office(s):_Lakeview District/Lakeview Resource Area
2. BLM Inventory Findings on Record
Existing inventory information regarding wilderness characteristics (if more than one BLM
inventory unit is associated with the area, list each unit/acreage and answer each question
individually for each inventory unit):
Unit#
Size
(historic acres)
1-53
Rawhide Creek
BLM
21,600
Natural
Condition?
Y/N
Outstanding
Solitude?
Y/N
NO
NO
Outstanding
Primitive &
Unconfined
Recreation?
Y/N
NO
Supplemental
Values?
Y/N
YES
Summarize any known primary reasons for prior inventory findings listed in this table:
The unit was described as a high plateau with Rawhide Canyon along the north and east, and
several tributaries to Rawhide Creek forming substantial canyons within the unit. The streams
were ephemeral and the canyons were dry most of the year. Rawhide Canyon divided into
several smaller canyons in the southern half of the unit. The canyons are the only significant
topographic relief and reach a maximum depth of about 200 feet. The canyon walls are
generally sloped with few vertical or near-vertical features.
Vegetation in the unit was primarily sagebrush communities with low sagebrush on or near the
flats and big sagebrush near wetter areas. The unit did not meet the naturalness criteria due to
the presence of approximately 24 miles of ways running throughout the interior of the unit,
including the canyon bottoms.
1
The unit was found to offer only limited potential for solitude based on the rationale that it would
be very difficult to avoid the sights and sounds of others on the flat plateau areas. While some
potential for topographic screening was identified within the canyons, it was limited. The
canyons would likely be a high interest area, but were not big enough to avoid the sights and
sounds of others and, therefore, did not offer an outstanding opportunity for solitude.
The previous inventory noted hunting, horseback riding, and hiking as primitive recreation
opportunities present in the unit, but concluded that none were outstanding due to the high level
of human impacts in the area, most notably the ways running in and around the canyons.
The unit was also known to contain some documented archeological values.
2
FORM 2
DOCUMENTATION OF CURRENT WILDERNESS INVENTORY CONDITIONS
Unit Number/Name: OR-015-053A/Rawhide Creek
Citizen Information Summary: In 2007, the BLM received a citizen proposal from the Oregon
Natural Desert Association (ONDA) for a 462,828-acre Buzzard Creek proposed WSA. A
portion of their proposal overlaps BLM’s wilderness inventory analysis area. ONDA included in
their information a narrative report, maps, photos, photo and route logs, and GIS data with their
route and photo point data. All of these materials were considered during the BLM’s wilderness
inventory evaluation for this area. They identified this large area as having no interior routes
which they felt met BLM’s definition of a wilderness inventory unit boundary road (see p. 2-35
of ONDA 2007).
(1) Is the unit of sufficient size? Yes X
No
Boundary Determination: BLM staff reviewed its own historic wilderness inventory information
and ONDA’s information to identify potential data gaps. Between 2008 and 2011, the BLM
conducted field inventory of the area to update its road and wilderness inventories and to gather
additional information to supplement ONDA’s wilderness information. This field work included
collecting additional photo documentation of potential inventory unit boundary roads in the area.
Using BLM and citizen-provided photos, field logs, and staff field knowledge, a BLM interdisciplinary (ID) team completed an analysis of the motorized routes within the area in April
2011.
ONDA’s 2007 inventory concluded that their 462,828-acre proposal was one large roadless area.
However, BLM’s ID team determined that several of the routes that ONDA identified as “ways”
are, in fact, inventory unit boundary roads. For this reason, the BLM found the Buzzard Creek
proposal is not one large roadless unit, but rather is comprised of several smaller inventory units,
which must be evaluated individually (Map 2). (Note: the majority of the Buzzard Creek
proposal was evaluated previously by the Burns and Lakeview District BLM staff as part its
West Warm Spring wilderness evaluation, completed in 2008, and is not addressed further
herein).
The ID team determined that the inventory unit is bounded on the west by BLM 6165-00 Road
(Corn Lake). On the north the unit is bounded by interim numbered road 0198 and BLM Road
6155-00 (Warner Valley). On the east the unit is bounded by a combination of BLM Roads
6155-K0 (Hemmy Cabin), 6155-G0 (Juniper Ridge), interim numbered road 6155-KB, and
private land. On the south, the unit is bounded BLM Road 6165-E0 (Brushy Lake) (Map 2).
Based on these boundary determinations, historic unit 1-53 was divided into 2 smaller inventory
units, 1 of which still met the size criteria and 1 that did not. This evaluation focuses on the
southern portion of historic unit 1-53. Refer to the route analysis forms, photos, and photo log(s)
contained in the wilderness inventory file for additional information regarding these boundary
road determinations.
3
Following the unit boundary determination, a BLM ID team conducted an inter-disciplinary
evaluation of the current wilderness characteristics within the unit boundary. The results are
contained in the following section. Additional background on the process that the BLM ID team
followed during this evaluation is contained in the document, Wilderness Inventory Maintenance
Process for the Lakeview Resource Area, BLM, located in the wilderness inventory file.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS: Inventory unit OR-015-053A is located about
12 miles southeast of Wagontire (Map 1) and is comprised of approximately 15,021 acres of
BLM-administered land (Map 2). The current unit is smaller than the historic unit 1-53 by
approximately 6,000 acres, but still contains most of the topography described in the previous
inventory. The southern two-thirds of the unit burned in a wildfire in 2001 and was allowed to
revegetate naturally. As a result, grasses and scattered sagebrush currently dominate the unit.
(2) Is the unit in a natural condition? Yes
X
No ______
The 1980 inventory evaluated a larger historic inventory unit (1-53) and found that it was
unnatural in character.
ONDA (2007, p. 10) felt their much larger Buzzard Creek proposal was primarily affected by the
forces of nature. While they noted the area did contain some manmade developments such as
fence lines, ways, stock tanks, and other features, they felt these few developments were
substantially noticeable only at close proximity, if at all, and did not dominate the landscape. As
noted above, the BLM did not find this proposal to be one large roadless area, but is in fact
comprised of a number of smaller inventory units that much be evaluated individually.
Compared to historic unit 1-53, the current inventory unit (OR-015-053A) has been reduced in
size due to the identification of additional boundary roads that now break up the historic
inventory unit into smaller subunits that must be evaluated separately.
The unit currently contains approximately 12.7 miles of primitive motorized routes and 8 known
water developments. These disturbances are located mostly near the periphery of the unit with
the exception of two roads which cherry-stem through the middle portion of the unit (Map 2) and
can be observed by the casual observer within close proximity (one-quarter mile), but are less
noticeable from further distances. See also Table 1: Cox Canyon Disturbance Summaries
contained in the wilderness inventory file.
Based on a review of all of the available information including photos, staff knowledge, and field
review, the ID team concluded that this smaller unit boundary removed most of the previous
inventory unit’s human disturbances and is currently in a condition mostly free from the works
of man and is primarily affected by the forces of nature.
(3) Does the unit (or the remainder of the unit if a portion has been excluded due to
unnaturalness and the remainder is of sufficient size) have outstanding opportunities for
solitude?
Yes
No
X
N/A___ _____
4
The previous inventory evaluated a larger historic unit (1-53) and determined that it did not offer
an outstanding opportunity for solitude.
ONDA (2007, p. 11) felt their Buzzard Creek proposal offered an outstanding opportunity for
solitude, primarily because of the shear size and varied terrain of the area. As noted above, the
BLM did not find this proposal to be one large roadless area, but is in fact comprised of a
number of smaller inventory units that much be evaluated individually.
Compared to historic unit 1-53, the current inventory unit (OR-015-053A) is smaller, still lacks
tall vegetative screening, and contains large expanses of flat plateau topography (Map 3).
Based on a review of all of the available information including photos, staff knowledge, and field
review, the ID team concluded that the majority of the unit continues to lack opportunities for
solitude. While the unit does offer some opportunities to find solitude, they remain limited to the
narrow canyon areas which are not large enough to avoid the sights and sounds of others within
the unit. Therefore, the unit as a whole continues to lack outstanding opportunities for solitude.
(4) Does the unit (or the remainder of the unit if a portion has been excluded due to
unnaturalness and the remainder is of sufficient size) have outstanding opportunities for
primitive and unconfined recreation?
Yes
No
X
N/A___ ____
The previous inventory noted that the larger historic unit (1-53) offered some potential for
primitive recreation including hunting, hiking, and horseback riding within the canyon areas, but
it was not outstanding.
ONDA (2007, p. 11) felt their Buzzard Creek proposal offered an outstanding opportunity for
primitive and unconfined recreation, primarily due to its large size. They state that an area of
this size cannot help but provide for diverse and exceptional recreation experiences such as
hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, camping, wildlife viewing, rock hounding, hunting, and
photography. As noted above, the BLM did not find this proposal to be one large roadless area,
but is in fact comprised of a number of smaller inventory units that much be evaluated
individually.
The ID team noted that the current unit (OR-015-053A) still offers similar primitive recreation
opportunities. However, the current inventory unit has been reduced in size. As a result, these
primitive recreation opportunities have also been reduced. These recreation opportunities are
similar to those available on surrounding public lands. The unit does not currently offer a single
unique primitive recreational opportunity or a unique diversity of primitive recreation
opportunities.
Based on a review of all of the available information including photos, staff knowledge, and field
review, the ID team concluded that, although many of the man-made disturbances that
previously impacted primitive recreation opportunities in 1980 have been excluded from the
current inventory unit boundary, the recreation opportunities within the area have not changed
substantially and the unit continues to lack outstanding opportunities for primitive or unconfined
recreation experiences.
5
(5) Does the unit have supplemental values? Yes
No ______ Unknown ___X____
The unit was identified as having archeological values in 1980.
ONDA (2007, p. 11) noted their much larger Buzzard Creek proposal contained wild horse and
burros, cultural resources, petrified wood, migratory bird habitat, and special status species
habitat.
Supplemental values were not specifically evaluated during this analysis because the unit failed
to meet the minimum wilderness criteria described above. However, it is important to note that
the presence of either wild horses or burros is not a resource value that meets the definition of a
supplemental value, nor are these species actually present in this inventory unit. Further,
petrified wood is not present in this inventory unit.
Summary of Findings and Conclusion: Unit Name and Number: Rawhide Creek/OR-015053A
Summary Results of Analysis:
1. Does the area meet the size requirements?
_X__ Yes ___No
2. Does the area appear to be natural?
_X__Yes ____No
3. Does the area offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation?
___Yes __X__No ____N/A
4. Does the area have supplemental values?
___Yes ____No __X__N/A
Conclusion (Check One):
_____ The area- or a portion of the area- has wilderness character:
(items 1, 2 and 3 must be checked “yes”).
___X_
The area does not have wilderness character: (any of items 1, 2 and 3 are
checked “no”).
6
Year_2013_
Inventory Unit Number/Name_Small Units/Cox Canyon Area
FORM 1
DOCUMENTATION OF BLM WILDERNESS INVENTORY FINDINGS ON RECORD
1. Is there existing BLM wilderness inventory information on all or part of this area?
No
(go to Form 2) Yes ___X____ (if more than one unit is within the area,
list the names/numbers of those units.)
a) Inventory Source: PP and L Inventory files (1978), Wilderness Proposed Initial
Inventory, Oregon and Washington: Roadless Areas and Islands Which Clearly Do Not
Have Wilderness Characteristics (April 1979), Wilderness Inventory, Oregon and
Washington: Final Intensive Inventory Decisions (November 1980).
b) Inventory Unit Name(s)/Number(s):__Cox Canyon Area
c) Map Name(s)/Number(s): Proposed Initial Inventory. Roadless Areas and Islands
which do not have Wilderness Characteristics, April 1979. Intensive Wilderness
Inventory Final Decisions, November 1980.
d) BLM District(s)/Field Office(s):_Lakeview District/Lakeview Resource Area
2. BLM Inventory Findings on Record
Existing inventory information regarding wilderness characteristics (if more than one
BLM inventory unit is associated with the area, list each unit/acreage and answer each
question individually for each inventory unit):
Unit#/
Name
Size
(historic
acres)
Natural
Condition?
Y/N
Outstanding
Solitude?
Y/N
Outstanding
Primitive &
Unconfined
Recreation?
Y/N
Supplemental
Values?
Y/N
Summarize any known primary reasons for prior inventory findings listed in this table):
No summaries are available for these small units, presumably because they all were found to
be smaller than 5,000 acres during the previous inventory and were not documented in
detail.
1
FORM 2
DOCUMENTATION OF CURRENT WILDERNESS INVENTORY CONDITIONS
a. Unit Number/Name Cox Canyon Area/Small Unnumbered Units
Citizen Information Summary: In 2007, the BLM received a citizen proposal from the Oregon
Natural Desert Association (ONDA) for a 462,828-acre Buzzard Creek proposed WSA. A
portion of their proposal overlaps BLM’s wilderness inventory analysis area. ONDA included in
their information a narrative report, maps, photos, photo and route logs, and GIS data with their
route and photo point data. All of these materials were considered during the BLM’s wilderness
inventory evaluation for this area. They identified this large area as having no interior routes
which they felt met BLM’s definition of a wilderness inventory unit boundary road (see p. 2-35
of ONDA 2007).
(1) Is the unit of sufficient size? Yes
No
X
Boundary Determination: BLM staff reviewed its own historic wilderness inventory information
and ONDA’s information to identify potential data gaps. Between 2008 and 2011, the BLM
conducted field inventory of the area to update its road and wilderness inventories and to gather
additional information to supplement ONDA’s wilderness information. This field work included
collecting additional photo documentation of potential inventory unit boundary roads in the area.
Using BLM and citizen-provided photos, field logs, and staff field knowledge, a BLM interdisciplinary (ID) team completed an analysis of the motorized routes within the area in April
2011.
ONDA’s 2007 inventory concluded that their 462,828-acre proposal was one large roadless area.
However, BLM’s ID team determined that several of the routes that ONDA identified as “ways”
are, in fact, inventory unit boundary roads. For this reason, the BLM found the Buzzard Creek
proposal is not one large roadless unit, but rather is comprised of several smaller inventory units,
which must be evaluated individually (Map 2). (Note: the majority of the Buzzard Creek
proposal was evaluated previously by the Burns and Lakeview District BLM staff as part its
West Warm Spring wilderness evaluation, completed in 2008, and is not addressed further
herein).
The BLM ID team determined that existing BLM Roads, 12 existing interim numbered routes,
the Highway 395 ROW, several utility corridor ROWs, and private and state land boundaries
formed inventory unit boundaries within the analysis area. The results of the route analysis
process are documented in the route analysis forms contained in the wilderness evaluation file.
The ID team determined that the Cox Canyon area contained 8 units that met the size criteria
(and were evaluated separately) and 23 others that did not, including 4 small units that
overlapped ONDA’s Buzzard Creek proposal (see Map 2). This evaluation focuses on these
small, unnumbered units. These units are all less than 5,000 acres in size and failed to meet the
size criteria or any of the exceptions to the size criteria. Based on this determination there was
no need for the BLM ID team to evaluate these units further.
2
Additional background on the process that the BLM ID team followed during this evaluation is
contained in the document Wilderness Inventory Maintenance Process for the Lakeview
Resource Area, BLM contained in the wilderness inventory file.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS: These units are scattered throughout the Cox
Canyon area and are all less than 5,000 acres in size (see Maps 1 and 2).
(2) Is the unit in a natural condition? Yes
No ______ N/A___X____
Naturalness was not evaluated as the units did not meet the minimum size criteria.
(3) Does the unit (or the remainder of the unit if a portion has been excluded due to
unnaturalness and the remainder is of sufficient size) have outstanding opportunities for
solitude?
Yes
No
N/A____X____
Solitude opportunities were not evaluated as the units did not meet the minimum size criteria.
(4) Does the unit (or the remainder of the unit if a portion has been excluded due to
unnaturalness and the remainder is of sufficient size) have outstanding opportunities for
primitive and unconfined recreation?
Yes
No
N/A___X____
Recreation opportunities were not evaluated as the units did not meet the minimum size criteria.
(5) Does the unit have supplemental values? Yes
No
N/A__X____
Supplemental values were not evaluated as the units did not meet the minimum size criteria.
3
Summary of Findings and Conclusion
Unit Name and Number Cox Canyon Area/Small Unnumbered Units
Summary Results of Analysis:
1. Do the areas meet the size requirements?
___Yes __X_No
2. Do the areas appear to be natural?
___Yes ____No _X_NA
3. Do the areas offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation?
___Yes ____No _X_NA
4. Do the areas have supplemental values?
___Yes ____No _X_NA
Conclusion (Check One):
_____ The areas- or portions of the areas- have wilderness character (items 1, 2 and 3
are checked “yes”).
___X__The areas do not have wilderness character (any of items 1, 2 and 3 are checked
“no”).
4